partisanship

Demographics and Republican Disconent Fuel Drastic Changes in Partisan Registrations

A story in The New York Times notes that drastic changes in the partisan make-up of the voter rolls bodes well for Democrats this year and may produce - dare we say it - a political realignment.

In several states, including the traditional battlegrounds of Nevada and Iowa, Democrats have surprised their own party officials with significant gains in registration. In both of those states, there are now more registered Democrats than Republicans, a flip from 2004. No states have switched to the Republicans over the same period, according to data from 26 of the 29 states in which voters register by party. (Three of the states did not have complete data.)

In six states, including Iowa, New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, the Democratic piece of the registration pie grew more than three percentage points, while the Republican share declined. In only three states — Kentucky, Louisiana and Oklahoma — did Republican registration rise while Democratic registration fell, but the Republican increase was less than a percentage point in Kentucky and Oklahoma. Louisiana was the only state to register a gain of more than one percentage point for Republicans as Democratic numbers declined.

What's happening here? A number of things, according to the article. First, there is an increase in Democratic registrations, but more significantly, there is a huge decrease in Republican registrations (and a corresponding increase in "independent" registrations). These changes are already having an impact up and down the ticket:

In the 26 states and the District of Columbia where registration data were available, the total number of registered Democrats increased by 214,656, while the number of Republicans fell by 1,407,971.

The unsettled political ground has manifested itself in state and local elections. Twenty-three state legislatures are controlled by Democrats and 14 by Republicans, with 12 states with divided chambers (Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature). After the 2000 election, 16 state legislatures were dominated by Democrats, and 17 by Republicans, with 16 divided.

It is a similar story in governors’ mansions. After the 2004 election, there were 28 Republican governors and 22 Democrats; those numbers are now reversed. After the 2000 election, there were only 19 Democratic governors.

Young people are playing a roll as well, and it's great to see a major political story get the story right - this is about more than excitement over Obama's candidacy:

In many states, Democrats have benefited from a rise in younger potential voters, after declines or small increases in the number of those voters in the 1980s and ’90s. The population of 18- to 24-year-olds rose from about 27 million in 2000 to nearly 30 million in 2006, according to Census figures.

Mr. Obama’s candidacy has drawn many young people to register to vote, and some of the recent gains by Democrats have no doubt been influenced by excitement over his campaign. But even before Mr. Obama’s ascendancy among Democrats, younger voters were moving toward the Democratic Party, demographers said.

Dowell Myers, a professor of policy, planning and development at the University of Southern California, also noted that a younger, native-born generation of Latinos who have a tendency to support Democrats is coming of age.

Further, young Americans have migrated in recent years to high-growth states that have traditionally been dominated by Republicans, like Arizona, Colorado and Nevada, which may have had an impact on the changing registration numbers in those places.

This is all great news, but one word of caution. Let's remember that the vast majority of these new young voters are college students. There's still a lot of work to do registering non-college students. These numbers should be a lot higher come October.

Quick Hits - June 4th

Still no word on data from CIRCLE . . . sorry. Waiting on them for my post-election recap.

  • Rolling Stone skewers the Senate in The Senate Caves.
  • Peter Levine - Director of CIRCLE - splashes some cold water on the idea that party identification forms early and hardens for life. Yikes, let's hope not.
  • In the past I've had real disagreements with Courtney Martin's reading of today's youth activism, but she does us all proud in this op-ed for the Women's Media Center.
  • The RNC tried to pull ahead of the DNC in the race for Facebook friends. It backfired hilariously. Full story at Tech President.
  • Campaigns and Elections has released a list of Rising Stars Under 35. A few are familiar. Most are not. What do you think of the list?
  • Apparently, in his quest to craft a "better" GI Bill than the one offered (and recently passed) by Jim Webb, John McCain didn't actually consult many veterans. You stay classy, McCain.

On Partisanship

I'm a partisan. I confess, the reason I've been an Edwards rather than an Obama supporter is that I believe there are real differences between the parties, that those differences matter, and that there can be no bipartishanship when the other party operates in bad faith, as the GOP has for the last 7 years.

So I found this opinion piece by Stanley Fish in today's New York Times to hit the nail on the head (and bear in mind that I write this as a New Yorker who voted for Nader in 2000

Against Independent Voters:

Floating independently above the fray and inhabiting the marketplace of ideas as if were a shopping bazaar rather than a battlefield is an unnatural condition. The natural condition is to be political. To be political is to believe something, and to believe something is to believe that those who believe something else are wrong, and after all you don’t want people who believe (and would do) the wrong things running your government. So you organize with other like-minded folks and smite the enemy (verbally) hip and thigh. You join a party.

What do independent voters do? Well, most of all, they talk about the virtue of being an independent voter. When they are asked to explain what that means, they say, “I can’t stand the partisan atmosphere that has infected our politics” (forgetting that politics is partisan by definition); or “we like to make up our own minds and don’t want anyone telling us what to do (as if Democrats and Republicans were sheep eager to go over whatever cliff the leadership brings them to) or (and this was a favorite of those interviewed in Iowa and New Hampshire), “We vote the person rather than the party.”

Now, voting the person rather than the party is about the dumbest thing you can do for a reason I elaborated in an earlier column (“Parties Matter”). The party affiliation of a candidate tells you what kind of appointments he or she is likely to make. Do you think that regulations of industry stifle productivity and damage the economy, or do you think that unregulated industries endanger the environment? Do you think that illegal immigrants are just that – illegal – and therefore should be deported when detected, or do you think that we should figure out a way to legitimize their status and make the best of what has already happened? Do you think that Iran poses a threat that must be countered before it is too late, or do you think that military action should be resorted to only after every avenue of diplomacy has been exhausted, even if it takes years or decades?

If you feel strongly about these and other matters, it is incumbent upon you to take into consideration the positions of the two major parties, for the successful candidate can be counted on to appoint to the offices responsible for answering these questions men and women whose views reflect the party’s platform.

Read the whole thing. I'm not asking anyone to change their vote, but I would like "post-partisans" to at least think about why partisanship in and of itself can be important and not evil in-itself.

Young Voters Support Democrats and the War in Iraq (?)

Matt Singer is the CEO of Forward Montana, a home-grown non-profit that trains, mobilizes, and elects new progressive leaders in Montana. This isn't his assigned guest-posting topic, but he can't help himself.

The New York Times has a new poll of young voters available. The poll was done in partnership with CBS and MTV.

Some of the news is wholly unsurprising. Young voters "are more likely than the general public to favor a government-run universal health care insurance system, an open-door policy on immigration and the legalization of gay marriage." In other words, we're all a bunch of dirty, f*cking hippies.

Until you read the next sentence: "The poll also found that they are more likely to say the war in Iraq is heading to a successful conclusion."

wHa?!?!?

A Young Voter's Response to The Democratic Strategist

Cross posted at MyDD and DailyKos. Recs. appreciated.

The Democratic Strategist has an interesting piece in this month's issue on how the Democrats can capture the partisanship of the "MySpace Generation."

From an historical standpoint, its a great article. Lots of information about partisan ID of young voters between 1976 and 2006. Watching the youth vote swing from Democrat, to heavy Republican, and back again is fascinating (yes - in the 1980's, the Republicans owned the youth vote). It also reiterates a few key points that have been made before on Future Majority:

  • Most political activity by youth comes through contact with nonprofits, not the Democratic Party
  • A lot of the progressive swing we are seeing among young voters is do to Bush and the war, and may evaporate post 2008. There is no Millennial Ideology with which Democrats can forge a longterm connection with young voters.
  • We are approaching the first of many thirds, but partisanship is not yet a lock, even among this first wave of Millennials. This is a rolling process that must continue beyond any one election.

At the end of the article, the authors pose a series of questions asking how Democrats can reach out to and capture the partisanship of the Millennial Generation. Here are my answers to those questions, as well as a question of my own that I pose to the authors:

Youth Break Democrat 60%-38%

Here's some preliminary info from CNN:

COMBINED CONGRESSIONAL BALLOT VOTE BY AGE
TOTAL Democrat Republican
18-29 (13%) 60% 38%
30-44 (24%) 53% 45%
45-59 (34%) 53% 45%
60+ (29%) 51% 47%

Ignore the 13% number. That is not a good indicator of overall turnout numbers. But check out that 60%! Millenials voted Democrat by 22% - more than double the advantage that they gave Kerry in 2004.

And yet again, we turned out to be more Democratic than any other generation. The Progressive Wave is coming, and its all about us Millenials.

YVS is releasing hard turnout numbers later today. I'll have a fuller post then.

Syndicate content